It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Just a few questions!!!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 11:10 PM
link   
I have been reading and watching some videos about 9/11 lately.I am not entirely convinced either way.I think everyone has some strong points but I have a few questions.

1)If all of these flights were cargo planes,Where are all the people off of the passenger planes and How where they switched?

2)Some eyewitnesses said they heard explosions but I have read that the people that jumped sounded like explosions when they hit the ground?

3)Has anyone ever consulted a company that implodes buildings with the tape of the towers and WTC7?

4)If a plane did not crash in Shanksville what did?

5)If a plane did not crash into the Pentegon what did?




posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 01:22 AM
link   
1)If all of these flights were cargo planes,Where are all the people off of the passenger planes and How where they switched?
Very few people support the cargo planes theory. Besides, it's not even important to the whole picture,


2)Some eyewitnesses said they heard explosions but I have read that the people that jumped sounded like explosions when they hit the ground?
The eye-witness reports I've read describe what you refer to more as loud bangs or thumps on the roof of the lobby. This should not be confused with explosions in the basement, burnt people, and explosions on various floors in the building, as described by numerous other witnesses.


3)Has anyone ever consulted a company that implodes buildings with the tape of the towers and WTC7?
QuietSoul did just that right here on ATS. Check out this thread here for the responses (starting from the third post down):
www.abovetopsecret.com...


4)If a plane did not crash in Shanksville what did?
Sounds like you're talking about another fringe theory that very few people support.


5)If a plane did not crash into the Pentegon what did?
Some say a missile, some say a Global Hawk, some say a smaller (than 757) passenger airliner. The 9-11 Truth Movement is divided on this one, and again, not all support the "no 757" theory.


You also might want to do a search to maybe find the answers to a lot of your questions and some others you may have.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 05:38 PM
link   
1) the cargo jet theory is just more disinformation to make the 9/11 truth movement look crazy.

2) Actually it was a lot of firemen who reported explosive devices going off. The seizmagraphs from earthquake observatories picked up 2.3 earthquakes seconds before each tower fell. Melted smoldering steel was found weeks later consistent with demoliton implosion.

5) I consider the no plane hitting the Pentagon yet another red herring, but I can't say conclusively, especially since the FBI confiscated the surveilence tapes.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 11:47 PM
link   

1)If all of these flights were cargo planes,Where are all the people off of the passenger planes and How where they switched?


While I'm not going to say there's no way drone planes were used, it is quite a bit less likely, in my opinion, than actual hijackers hijacking the real flights. If you're going with the Cargo Planes/Drones theory, the planes *could* be landed and all the people could be executed. I just don't see it happening, myself.

There was, however, this report that United Flight 77 landed in Cincinatti and air traffic controllers heard screams inside the cabin (the article I am linking does not contain the screaming part - if I find that article, I will post it as well): wcpo.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Link to story.

That article is now only available through archive.org and if you go the link of the story, they say it has been removed as it was factually incorrect. Other articles were later modified to say it was, in fact, a Delta flight that had been thought to have been hijacked but was not.


2)Some eyewitnesses said they heard explosions but I have read that the people that jumped sounded like explosions when they hit the ground?


I have not personally heard about the people sounding like explosions (personally, to me, the images of people jumping are the most horrible of all from that day) but I have seen videos where there is a visible shake (both in the camera and on the WTC tower - pieces of hanging debris can be seen to flutter/fall off) several seconds before the collapse. There are also the witnesses in the basement/lobby who say there was a massive explosion at the base of the tower.


3)Has anyone ever consulted a company that implodes buildings with the tape of the towers and WTC7?


Answered quite nicely above.


4)If a plane did not crash in Shanksville what did?


A plane, Flight 93, did crash there. It probably was shot down, in my opinion, due to the large debris field and the in-flight magazines that were scattered around the area quite a bit.


5)If a plane did not crash into the Pentegon what did?

Flight 77, a Boeing 757, did crash into the Pentagon. I suggest you read this thread for quite convincing evidence: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Mod Edit: Fixed Link Length

[edit on 17/9/2005 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoganCale
4)If a plane did not crash in Shanksville what did?

A plane, Flight 93, did crash there. It probably was shot down, in my opinion, due to the large debris field and the in-flight magazines that were scattered around the area quite a bit.


There's also the theory that, because the debris spread would show that Flight 93 was shot down out of the air, that a missile was then shot into the ground to create a bogus "crash site". The only crater at the crash site is just a smoking hole in the dirt, with no wreckage around or in it.









posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 12:19 AM
link   
I watched the documentary that the two French(?) brothers filmed that day. The firefighters were in the lobby, and suddenly you started hearing *BANG* *BANG* *BANG* It later turned out that those were people hitting the ground. It was one of the most horrible things I've ever heard.

The firefighters heard explosions. There were many things in the WTC towers that would explode. There were miles of gas pipes for the restaraunt, there were transformers, etc. Just because you have an explosion doesn't mean you have an explosive.



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
There's also the theory that, because the debris spread would show that Flight 93 was shot down out of the air, that a missile was then shot into the ground to create a bogus "crash site". The only crater at the crash site is just a smoking hole in the dirt, with no wreckage around or in it.


Well, in the chance that it was not shot down and went into a dive, I would suspect it would be little more than a smoking hole in the ground as well. I'm not sure they would have to worry about public outrage all that much. If it were going to hit the White House or the Capitol and they had to shoot it down, I'm sure many people would feel that was the right thing to do.

However, if the passengers were, in fact, going to take control of the aircraft, and they shot it down before they managed to do so, I can see why they would want to keep it secret that it was shot down.


Originally posted by Zaphod58
The firefighters heard explosions. There were many things in the WTC towers that would explode. There were miles of gas pipes for the restaraunt, there were transformers, etc. Just because you have an explosion doesn't mean you have an explosive.


Those are definitely legitimate possibilities for the explosions that should be equally considered. Would a gas pipe or a transformer cause a camera some distance away to shake, as well as pieces of debris on the tower? (I have the video where this takes place on my computer and will attempt to find it online.)

[edit on 17-9-2005 by LoganCale]



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 12:51 AM
link   
I believe this is it.

www.911research.com...

The debris falls from the right side of the building. I think in a wider frame version (WTC - The First 24 Hours), you can see a pigeon disturbed by the shaking and fly off.



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
I believe this is it.

www.911research.com...


That is indeed the video I was referring to. If you enlarge it, there is also a piece of hanging debris on the left edge of the tower that, while it is fluttering somewhat during the entire clip, appears to swing a bit faster around the time the camera shakes.

[EDIT: I just noticed that the initial shake is actually more powerful than the collapse itself, it appears - unless the clip cuts off before the ground vibrations would reach there.]

[edit on 17-9-2005 by LoganCale]



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoganCale
[EDIT: I just noticed that the initial shake is actually more powerful than the collapse itself, it appears - unless the clip cuts off before the ground vibrations would reach there.]


No, I have the whole clip and it continues on well after the collapse. There is no visible camera shaking from the collapse.



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 01:49 AM
link   
That's strange. I would expect the collapse of the tower to create a much greater ground vibration than even a possible explosive. Could the camera shake be from the helicopter flying over that you can hear in the audio? And the fact that debris is falling and moving at the same time is just coincidence or due to the fact that the towers are about to collapse and beginning to move?



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 01:58 AM
link   
My apologies, I was going from memory. I just watched it again, and there is indeed visible shaking from the collapse, but it is not as pronounced as the one-time pre-collapse shake.


That's strange. I would expect the collapse of the tower to create a much greater ground vibration than even a possible explosive.

Explosions make a much greater ground vibration if they are coupled to the ground. A huge explosion in the basement would be expected to make a much larger tremor than falling debris. As an example, the truck bomb at the OKC federal building did not even register on the local seismic sensors, even though it (supposedly) destroyed half the building. However the other explosions in that building did register.



Could the camera shake be from the helicopter flying over that you can hear in the audio?

The heli would have to be damn close to produce that I would assume.


And the fact that debris is falling and moving at the same time is just coincidence or due to the fact that the towers are about to collapse and beginning to move?

Sounds like a stretch to me. This is why defenders of the lie are called "coincidence theorists".

[edit on 2005-9-17 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 04:17 PM
link   
I would say that the helicopter is a possibility. It would have to be very low and directly overhead, probably, but I have been under helicopters that shake the ground quite a bit. It may not be a probability, but it is something to consider as the source of the shake.

It's either that or some sort of explosion - be it gas lines, etc or an intentional explosion.

Unless I'm leaving out another possibility. I'm kind of out of it today. Was on a train all night and couldn't sleep well. And I forgot my computer, so I have to use someone else's until it gets shipped here. :/



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoganCale
There was, however, this report that United Flight 77 landed in Cincinatti and air traffic controllers heard screams inside the cabin (the article I am linking does not contain the screaming part - if I find that article, I will post it as well): wcpo.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Link to story.


[edit on 17/9/2005 by Mirthful Me]


I checked out that site and it's not Flight 77 in Cincinnati, it's Flight 93 in Cleveland.

Now what happened to the passengers?



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
I checked out that site and it's not Flight 77 in Cincinnati, it's Flight 93 in Cleveland.


I apologize, I should have checked that again before posting.



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoganCale

Originally posted by Amethyst
I checked out that site and it's not Flight 77 in Cincinnati, it's Flight 93 in Cleveland.


I apologize, I should have checked that again before posting.


That's okay--I still found it really intriguing. From the track they say Flight 93 took, it had been in Cleveland airspace...probably went right over my head (I'm about an hour's drive from Cleveland).



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 09:27 PM
link   
I haven't found anything about Flight 93 landing in Cleveland. I even found some info from a controller in Cleveland Center, and he never mentioned it. There were several transmissions recorded by Cleveland of a voice saying "We have a bomb onboard and are returning to the airport" but nothing about it landing anywhere. The theory that the passengers from all the flights were put onto 93 and it was intentionally crashed ASSUMES it landed somewhere, possibly Cleveland.



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 09:34 PM
link   
I'm saying I know Flight 93 was in Cleveland airspace...but whether it landed, crashed, or passed through Cleveland is the question I'm asking.

I also heard sometime back that Flight 77 crashed somewhere in Kentucky or West Virginia...I think Kentucky, near the KY/OH state line. My memory's bad on this one too at the moment.



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Flight 93 was overflying Cleveland when it suddenly stopped responding to ATC, and was seen by three or four planes to turn around and fly back East, shortly after it turned around, a plume of black smoke was reported by an American Airlines flight.

AA77 stopped responding to ATC over the Kentucky/Ohio border, when it suddenly turned around and headed back East.

[edit on 18-9-2005 by Zaphod58]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join